patch implement it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index f6a7a4e..ed2d0af 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -434,25 +434,6 @@ static int is_vma_resv_set(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long flag)
return (get_vma_private_data(vma
ge page if free count is under
the reserve count.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 6c1eb9b..f6a7a4e 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -464,6 +464,8 @@ void reset_vma_resv_huge_pages(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
/* Returns true if the VMA has associat
if (q == MAP_FAILED) {
fprintf(stderr, "mmap() failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
}
q[0] = 'c';
This patch solve this problem.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index ed2d0af..defb180 100644
--- a/m
If list is empty, list_for_each_entry_safe() doesn't do anything.
So, this check is redundant. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index a838e6b..d4a1695 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -1019,10 +1019,8 @@ free:
spin_u
We don't need to proceede the processing if we don't have any usable
free huge page. So move this code up.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index e2bfbf7..d87f70b 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -539,10 +539,6 @@ static s
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:51:22AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 11:12 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> > I'd also like to see some scalability numbers on this. How do your
> >> > tests look when all the CPUs on the system are hammering away?
> > What
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:31:42AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 11:12 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:38:20PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> You're probably right for small numbers of pages. But, if we're talking
> >> abou
: Respect CROSS_COMPILE
Make lk use CROSS_COMPILE, in order to be able to cross compile perf
again.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/tools/lib/lk/Makefile b/tools/lib/lk/Makefile
index 280dd82..3dba0a4 100644
--- a/tools/lib/lk/Makefile
+++ b/tools/lib/lk/Makefile
@@ -3,21 +3,6
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:40:16PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > First 5 patches are almost trivial clean-up patches.
> >
> > The others are for fixing three bugs.
> > Perhaps, these problems are minor, because this codes are used
> &
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:31:33PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > We don't need to proceede the processing if we don't have any usable
> > free huge page. So move this code up.
>
> I guess you can also mention that since we are ho
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:57:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Current node iteration code have a minor problem which do one more
> > node rotation if we can't succeed to allocate. For example,
> > if we start to allocate at node 0,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:01:24PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > If list is empty, list_for_each_entry_safe() doesn't do anything.
> > So, this check is redundant. Remove it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
>
> Reviewed
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:27:29AM +0800, Sam Ben wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 09:10 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:40:16PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>Joonsoo Kim writes:
> >>
> >>>First 5 patches are almost trivial clean-up patche
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:25:40PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Currently, we use a page with mapped count 1 in page cache for cow
> > optimization. If we find this condition, we don't allocate a new
> > page and copy contents. Inste
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:41:12PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > If we map the region with MAP_NORESERVE and MAP_SHARED,
> > we can skip to check reserve counting and eventually we cannot be ensured
> > to allocate a huge page in fault
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:55:48AM +0800, Sam Ben wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 09:45 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:27:29AM +0800, Sam Ben wrote:
> >>On 07/16/2013 09:10 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:40:16PM +0530, Aneesh Kuma
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:06:04AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 07:31:33PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> Joonsoo Kim writes:
> >>
> >> > We don't need to proceede the processing if we
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> >>>Reading the existing comment, this change looks very suspicious to me.
> >>>A per-vma mutex is just not going to pr
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:17:23AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:41:12PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> Joonsoo Kim writes:
> >>
> >> > If we map the region with MAP_NORESERVE and MAP_S
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:27:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robin Holt wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > With this patch, we did boot a 16TiB machine. Without the patches, the
> > v3.10 kernel with the same configuration took 407 seconds for
> > free_all_bootmem. With the patches and operat
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:00:48AM +0800, Jianguo Wu wrote:
> On 2013/7/15 17:52, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > Current node iteration code have a minor problem which do one more
> > node rotation if we can't succeed to allocate. For example,
> > if we start to allocate
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:01:46PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:34:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > > >On Sun, Ju
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:50:25PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: David Gibson
>
> At present, the page fault path for hugepages is serialized by a
> single mutex. This is used to avoid spurious out-of-memory conditions
> when the hugepage pool is fully utilized (two processes or threads c
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:50:25PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> From: Davidlohr Bueso
>
> - Cleaned up and forward ported to Linus' latest.
> - Cache aligned mutexes.
> - Keep non SMP systems using a single mutex.
>
> It was found that this mutex can become quite contended
> during the early
patch implement it.
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index ca15854..4b1b043 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -434,25 +434,6 @@ static int is_vma_resv_set(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index e2bfbf7..fc4988c 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -539,10 +539,6 @@ static struct page *dequeue_huge_page_vma(struct hstate *h,
struct zoneref *z;
unsigned int cpuset_mems_cookie;
ase
reserve count. As implementing above, this patch solve the problem.
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 4b1b043..b3b8252 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -443,10 +443,23 @@ void reset_v
ion to a page
in page cache, the problem is disappeared.
So, I change the trigger condition of optimization. If this page is not
AnonPage, we don't do optimization. This makes this optimization turning
off for a page cache.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li
Reviewed-by: Naoya Hori
(). This prevent to steal
a reserved page.
With this change, above test generate a SIGBUG which is correct,
because all free pages are reserved and non reserved shared mapping
can't get a free page.
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff
ar it's purpose.
Remove useless indentation changes in 'clean-up alloc_huge_page()'
Fix new iteration code bug.
Add reviewed-by or acked-by.
Joonsoo Kim (9):
mm, hugetlb: move up the code which check availability of free huge
page
mm, hugetlb: trivial commenting fix
mm, hug
e_mask_to_[alloc|free]" and
fix and clean-up node iteration code to alloc or free.
This makes code more understandable.
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 31d78c5..87d7637 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@
ure, so it can be modified by two processes concurrently.
To solve this, I introduce a lock to resv_map and make region manipulation
function grab a lock before they do actual work. This makes region
tracking safe.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux
'reservations' is so long name as a variable and we use 'resv_map'
to represent 'struct resv_map' in other place. To reduce confusion and
unreadability, change it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index d971233..12b6581 1006
This patch unifies successful allocation paths to make the code more
readable. There are no functional changes.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 51564a8..31d78c5 100644
--- a
If list is empty, list_for_each_entry_safe() doesn't do anything.
So, this check is redundant. Remove it.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko
Reviewed-by: Wanpeng Li
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 87d7637..2e52afea 100644
---
uot;[PATCH] mm/hugetlb: per-vma instantiation mutexes"
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/96
"[PATCH v2 00/10] mm, hugetlb: clean-up and possible bug fix"
Joonsoo Kim (18):
mm, hugetlb: protect reserved pages when softofflining requests the
pages
mm, huge
To change a protection method for region tracking to find grained one,
we pass the resv_map, instead of list_head, to region manipulation
functions. This doesn't introduce any functional change, and it is just
for preparing a next step.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c
han how we need, because reserve count already decrease in
dequeue_huge_page_vma(). This patch fix this situation.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index bb8a45f..6a9ec69 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -649,6 +649,34 @@ struct hstate *size
Now, we have prepared to have an infrastructure in order to remove a this
awkward mutex which serialize all faulting tasks, so remove it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 909075b..4fab047 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2533,9 +2533,7
sible. So move up anon_vma_prepare() which can be failed
in OOM situation.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 683fd38..bb8a45f 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2536,6 +2536,15 @@ retry_avoidcopy:
/* Drop page_table_lock as buddy allo
. use_reserve
represent that this user is legimate one who are ensured to have enough
reserved pages. This prevent these thread not to get a SIGBUS signal and
make these thread retrying fault handling.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 6a9ec69..909075b 100644
--- a/mm
Current code include 'Caller expects lock to be held' in every error path.
We can clean-up it as we do error handling in one place.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 255bd9e..683fd38 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2516
alloc_huge_page_node() use dequeue_huge_page_node() without
any validation check, so it can steal reserved page unconditionally.
To fix it, check the number of free_huge_page in alloc_huge_page_node().
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 6782b41..d971233
Now, alloc_huge_page() only return -ENOSPEC if failed.
So, we don't worry about other return value.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 94173e0..35ccdad 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2562,7 +2562,6 @@ retry_avoidcopy:
new
We don't need to grab a page_table_lock when we try to release a page.
So, defer to grab a page_table_lock.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 35ccdad..255bd9e 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2630,10 +2630,11 @@ retry_avoi
Just move down outsider_reserve check.
This makes code more readable.
There is no functional change.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 5f31ca5..94173e0 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -2530,20 +2530,6 @@ retry_avoidcopy
handling and remove
a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index a66226e..5f31ca5 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -1123,12 +1123,12 @@ static void vma_commit_reservation(struct hstate *h,
}
static struct page
vma_need_reservation() can be substituted by vma_has_reserves()
with minor change. These function do almost same thing,
so unifying them is better to maintain.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index bf2ee11..ff46a2c 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
Currently, we have two variable to represent whether we can use reserved
page or not, has_reserve and avoid_reserve, respectively.
These have same meaning, so we can unify them to use_reserve.
This makes no functinoal difference, is just for clean-up.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm
We don't have to call vma_has_reserve() each time we need information.
Passing has_reserve unburden this effort.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index ff46a2c..1426c03 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -572,7 +572,8 @@ static struct
re to fine grained lock, and this difference hinder it.
So, before changing it, unify region structure handling.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index a3f868a..a1ae3ada 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -366,7 +3
The name of the mutex written in comment is wrong.
Fix it.
Acked-by: Michal Hocko
Acked-by: Hillf Danton
Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index fc4988c..51564a8 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -135,9 +135,9
When we try to get a huge page with avoid_reserve, we don't consume
a reserved page. So it is treated like as non-reserve case.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 1426c03..749629e 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -1149,12 +1149,13 @@ s
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:27:23AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> This patchset attempts to reduce the amount of contention we impose
> on the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex by replacing the global mutex with
> a table of mutexes, selected based on a hash. The original discussion can
> be found here
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:24:46PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > alloc_huge_page_node() use dequeue_huge_page_node() without
> > any validation check, so it can steal reserved page unconditionally.
>
> Well, why is it il
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:57:37PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Currently, to track a reserved and allocated region, we use two different
> > ways for MAP_SHARED and MAP_PRIVATE. For MAP_SHARED, we use
> > address_mapping's private_list
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:58:57PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > There is a race condition if we map a same file on different processes.
> > Region tracking is protected by mmap_sem and hugetlb_instantiation_mutex.
> >
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:53:05AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 14:31 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > There is a race condition if we map a same file on different processes.
> > Region tracking is protected by mmap_sem and hugetlb_instantiation_mutex.
> >
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:49:24AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:24:46PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Joonsoo Kim
> >> wrote:
> &
Hello, Naoya.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 01:52:52PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:31:57PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > vma_need_reservation() can be substituted by vma_has_reserves()
> > with minor change. These function do almost same t
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:19:58PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > vma_need_reservation() can be substituted by vma_has_reserves()
> > with minor change. These function do almost same thing,
> > so unifying them is better to maintain.
>
&
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:05:51PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:31:59PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > When we try to get a huge page with avoid_reserve, we don't consume
> > a reserved page. So it is treated like as non-reserve case.
>
> Thi
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:27:54PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:32:01PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > To implement a graceful failure handling, we need to know whether
> > allocation request is for reserved pool or not, on higher level.
> > In thi
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:39:30PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:32:02PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Just move down outsider_reserve check.
> > This makes code more readable.
> >
> > There is no functional change.
>
> Why don'
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:19:15PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 03:05:37PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:32:06PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > If we fail with a allocated hugepage, it is hard to recover properly.
> &g
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 04:19:10PM -0400, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:32:07PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > If we fail with a reserved page, just calling put_page() is not sufficient,
> > because put_page() invoke free_huge_page() at last step and it d
Hello, David.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 05:28:23PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:32:08PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:37:08AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 02:28:18PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Currently, we use a page with mapped count 1 in page cache for cow
> > optimization. If we find this condition, we don't allocate a new
> &
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:21:38PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:49:24AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Joonsoo Kim
> >> wrote:
> >> > O
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:25:04PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:21:38PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Joonsoo Kim
> >> wrote:
> >> > O
354958aa7 kernel/sched/fair.o
In addition, rename @balance to @should_balance in order to represent
its purpose more clearly.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index eaae77e..7f51b8c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
d-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 7f51b8c..f72ee7d 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4195,36 +4195,6 @@ static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p)
/** Helpers for find_busiest_
Remove one division operation in find_buiest_queue().
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index c61a614..eaae77e 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4931,7 +4931,7 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env
an be compiled properly.
* Change from v1
Remove 2 patches, because I cannot sure they are right.
Joonsoo Kim (3):
sched: remove one division operation in find_buiest_queue()
sched: factor out code to should_we_balance()
sched: clean-up struct sd_lb_stat
kernel/sched/fair.c |
vbq in vmap_block isn't used. So remove it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index 13a5495..d23c432 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -752,7 +752,6 @@ struct vmap_block_queue {
struct vmap_block {
spinlock_t lock;
s
Our intention in here is to find last_bit within the region to flush.
There is well-defined function, find_last_bit() for this purpose and
it's performance may be slightly better than current implementation.
So change it.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
Size is usually below than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.
If we add a 'unlikely' macro, compiler can make better code.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index 538bade..f0410eb 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ struct
PageSwapCache() is always false when !CONFIG_SWAP, so compiler
properly discard related code. Therefore, we don't need #ifdef explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
index d95cde5..c638a71 100644
--- a/include/linux/swap.h
+++ b/in
pgtable related functions are mostly in pgtable-generic.c.
So move remaining functions from memory.c to pgtable-generic.c.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 1ce2e2a..26bce51 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -374,30 +374,6 @@ void
We rarely allocate a page with ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS and it is used
in slow path. For making fast path more faster, add likely macro to
help compiler optimization.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index b100255..86ad44b 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b
We don't need a new page and then go out immediately if some condition
is met. Allocation has overhead in comparison with some condition check,
so allocating lazyily is preferable solution.
Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index 6f0c244..86db87e 100644
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 09:51:45AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 2 August 2013 03:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Now checking whether this cpu is appropriate to balance or not
> > is embedded into update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct
> > relationship to th
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 12:20:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 06:05:51PM +0900, ���ؼ� wrote:
>
> What is with you people; have you never learned to trim emails?
>
> Seriously, I'm going to write a script which tests to too many quoted
> lines, too many nested quotes an
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:52:28AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 04:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:56:14PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> You need to iterate over all the groups of the sched domain env->sd and
> not just the first group of env
> > + if (busiest->group_imb) {
> > + busiest->sum_weighted_load =
> > + min(busiest->sum_weighted_load, sds->sd_avg_load);
>
> Right here we get confused as to why the total load is being compared
> against load per task (although you are changing it to load per task
> Any mapping that doesn't use the reserved pool, not just
> MAP_NORESERVE. For example, if a process makes a MAP_PRIVATE mapping,
> then fork()s then the mapping is instantiated in the child, that will
> not draw from the reserved pool.
>
> > Should we ensure them to allocate the last hugepage?
> get_new_page() sets up result to communicate error codes from the
> following checks. While the existing ones (page freed and thp split
> failed) don't change rc, somebody else might add a condition whose
> error code should be propagated back into *result but miss it.
>
> Please leave get_new_
Hello, Michal.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:36:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-08-13 16:47:10, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 06:27:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 02-08-13 11:07:56, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 05:10:08PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:36:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 02-08-13 16:47:10, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 06:27:22PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:01:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static inline void init_sd_lb_stats(struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
> +{
> + /*
> + * struct sd_lb_stats {
> + * struct sched_group * busiest; // 0 8
> + * struct sched_group *
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:00:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> After poking at them a little more I feel somewhat more confident.
>
> I found one more bug, but this one was my own fault, we should also clear
> sds->busiest_stat.avg_load because update_sd_pick_busiest() reads that before
> we
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:08:29AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:01:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +static inline void init_sd_lb_stats(struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > +* struct sd_lb_stats {
> > +* s
Hello, Aneesh.
First of all, thank you for review!
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 02:58:20PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > If we alloc hugepage with avoid_reserve, we don't dequeue reserved one.
> > So, we should check subpool counter when avoid_
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:24:13PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > If we fail with a reserved page, just calling put_page() is not sufficient,
> > because put_page() invoke free_huge_page() at last step and it doesn't
> > know whether a pa
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:52:57PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Currently, to track a reserved and allocated region, we use two different
> > ways for MAP_SHARED and MAP_PRIVATE. For MAP_SHARED, we use
> > address_mapping's private_list
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:27:38PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Currently, to track a reserved and allocated region, we use two different
> > ways for MAP_SHARED and MAP_PRIVATE. For MAP_SHARED, we use
> > address_mapping's private_list
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:43:27PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > static long region_chg(struct resv_map *resv, long f, long t)
> > {
> > struct list_head *head = &resv->regions;
> > - struct file_region *rg, *nrg;
> > + struct file_region *rg, *nrg = NULL;
> > long chg = 0;
> >
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:19:20PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > In following patch, I change vma_resv_map() to return resv_map
> > for all case. This patch prepares it by removing resv_map_put() which
> > doesn't works properly with
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:07:36PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Util now, we get a resv_map by two ways according to each mapping type.
> > This makes code dirty and unreadable. So unfiying it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim
>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:38:12PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Joonsoo Kim writes:
>
> > Hello, Aneesh.
> >
> > First of all, thank you for review!
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 02:58:20PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> Joonsoo Kim w
301 - 400 of 2325 matches
Mail list logo
